Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hm. Perhaps the "cannot update view" test is too strict --- it's not
> >> bright enough to realize that the two rules together cover all cases,
> >> so it complains that you *might* be trying to update the view. As the
> >> code stands, you must provide an unconditional DO INSTEAD rule to
> >> implement insertion or update of a view.
> > Disagree.
> > A conditional rule splits the command into two, one with the
> > rules action and the condition added, one which is the
> > original statement plus the negated condition. So there are
> > cases left where an INSERT can happen to the view relation
> > and it's the job of this test to prevent it.
> Well, in that case the present code is broken, because it's going to
> spit up if any part of the rewritten query shows the view as result
> relation (cf. QueryRewrite() ... note that this logic no longer looks
> much like it did the last time you touched it ;-)). You'd have to
> convert the existing rewrite-time test into a runtime test in order to
> see whether the query actually tries to insert any tuples into the view.
> While that is maybe reasonable for insertions, it's totally silly
> for update and delete queries. Since the view itself can never contain
> any tuples to be updated or deleted, a runtime test that errors out
> when one attempts to update or delete such a tuple could never fire.
> I don't think that means that we shouldn't complain about an update
> or delete on a view.
> I think the test is best left as-is...
Since conditional rules aren't any better compared to an
unconditional multi-action instead rule where the single
actions have all the different conditions, let's leave it as
is and insist on one unconditional instead rule.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jan Wieck||Date: 2000-12-04 19:18:25|
|Subject: Re: Wrong FOR UPDATE lock type|
|Previous:||From: The Hermit Hacker||Date: 2000-12-04 18:59:52|
|Subject: Re: Using Threads?|
pgsql-sql by date
|Next:||From: Joel Burton||Date: 2000-12-04 20:27:34|
|Subject: Re: [SQL] Access Permissions/Security|
|Previous:||From: clayton cottingham||Date: 2000-12-04 17:57:22|
|Subject: Re: how to execute a C program via trigger ?|